재요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The grounds alleged in the first instance court’s appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court. However, the evidence alone submitted by the first instance court is insufficient to presume that the first approved injury and disease (the escape from the 4-5 conical signboard) caused by the Plaintiff’s accident on March 18, 1986 due to the recurrence or aggravation of the first approved injury and disease (the escape certificate, etc. of the 4-5 conical signboard) caused the application for the re-treatment of the instant medical care, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Rather, according to the medical record appraisal entrustment with the head of Korea University Hospital at the first instance court, it can be recognized that the injury and disease in the application for the re-treatment of the above re-treatment is caused by natural disavative changes following aging.
Therefore, the first instance court’s determination that there is no proximate causal relation between the accident of this case and the first approved disease of this case is justifiable in that the above application for approval of additional medical care was filed.
[Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the proximate causal link between the instant accident and the injury and disease in the application for approval for additional medical care may be acknowledged, in view of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff was also subject to the pressure of the third main text, other than the escape from the instant accident, for which the approval for medical care was granted; and (b) the Plaintiff was unfairly excluded from the time of the approval for the first medical care; and (c) there was a pressure of the third main text. However, it is difficult to acknowledge that there was no objective evidence to prove that the Plaintiff suffered from the pressure of the third main text of the instant accident (Evidences. 6, 8, 9, and 12 of the A) was made based on the Plaintiff’s statement after November 23, 2012.
However, even if the third pressure was incurred, the third pressure was also suffered.
Even if the medical treatment for the injury and disease suffered from the accident of this case was completed around September 24, 1987, it is deemed that there is a proximate causal relation with the accident of March 18, 1986, even if the 4-5 conical signboard change and escape certificate were diagnosed after 25 years from the date.